He is not capricious but has put order and regularity into His creation, and He is a reliable eyewitness of what happened in the past as recorded in the Bible.
If you did, you'd know about radiometric dating and how it is used as irrefutable proof that the Earth by itself is approximately four billion years old. Yes, we are well aware that there are different radioactive isotopes and that they can be used via the technique of radiometric dating to date materials from bone fragments to rocks. From the way you are using the word, it does not seem that you understand its meaning.
In a courtroom, the “proof” that is sought by the judge and the jury is corroborated testimonies from eyewitnesses who were present at the scene of the crime and who saw the accused perpetrate the crime.
That’s an assumption, not “irrefutable proof.” As for the idea that “there is a great amount of proof…that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago,” you should check out the dating of dinosaur bone fragments.
As you yourself have said, radioactive isotopes can be used to date bone fragments.
The only way we know our observations were the same last week as they are today is if we have an eyewitness testimony from someone who made the same observations last week.
In the Bible, we have the eyewitness testimony of someone who has been present throughout all of history and who has told us what happened.Since you clearly do not accept the Creator God of the Bible, then with respect, you have no basis for doing science and knowing whether any observations you make are reliable.The term “creation scientist” is hardly an oxymoron, because the scientific method can only be consistently used by those who accept that the Creator God of the Bible does not change.And what we read in the Bible is confirmed by the observations we make in the world around us.In fact, we can only “do science” because that someone is the Creator God, who built the universe.On the other hand, the court testimonies of forensic scientists are subjected to intense scrutiny, because they do not constitute proof.